Thirty years of ASEAN: Achievements and challenges

Dosch, Jörn; Mols, Manfred

doi:10.1080/09512749808719251

Cited by 11 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In sum, ASEAN is not a military alliance but a security community in the sense that probably no ASEAN member would seriously consider the use of military force as a means of problem solving in inter-member relations. As for ASEAN's international position during the Cold War the groups leaders generally shared the view that their national development required a regional international order in which the balance of power would operate, and alternations in the distribution of power would occur peacefully and within an international context of negotiated neutrality (Dosch 1997). This point is best summarised by former Malaysian Foreign Minister Ghazali Shafie: ''The past [decades] had shown the resilience of ASEAN in manoeuvring the turbulences of Cold War and intense East-West rivalries, despite the varied affiliations or non-alignment of its members'' (cited in Jakarta Post, 17 October 1992).…”

Section: Traditional Security Culturesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Changing security cultures in Europe and Southeast Asia: Implications for inter-regionalism

Dosch

2003

Asia Europe Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent development in Southeast Asia demonstrates a slowly but steadily changing security culture from, first, an informal, consensus-based and often hidden way of managing security to a more open and explicit discourse and, second, from a statist realist definition of security as hard or military security to a broader, liberal understanding that covers the whole spectrum of human, economic and environmental security. This security culture in the making also touches upon formerly tabooed issues such as sovereignty and humanitarian intervention. The paper argues that the new approach has removed obstacles in relations between Europe and East Asia and contributed to the emergence of security as a cornerstone of the co-operation agenda since 1998. At the same time, however, a rapid translation of the inter-regional discourse on security into a working programme or even specific policies is hindered by the prevalence of diverging views on the nature, scope and degree of institutionalisation in Europe-East Asia relations.

show abstract

Section: Traditional Security Culturesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Changing security cultures in Europe and Southeast Asia: Implications for inter-regionalism

Dosch

2003

Asia Europe Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Both ASEAN and the EU have been contributors to peace in their respective regions -ASEAN with Cambodia and the EU in civilian crisis management (Huxley 1996;Dosch and Mols 1998;Narine 2009). In addition, they have experience in inter-regional peace support in the Aceh Monitoring Mission.…”

Section: Can Europe Draw On Asia's Experience?mentioning

confidence: 99%

East Asian Regionalism and EU Studies

Murray

2010

Journal of European Integration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines the development of Asian regionalism and the scholarship on regionalism in Asia in relation to EU studies. It provides a brief overview of the development and relative successes to date of East Asian regionalism. It then examines scholarship on the East Asian region -the principal approaches, concepts and methods before moving on to ask what, if anything, scholars of EU studies can learn from scholarship on the East Asian region and what, if anything, scholars of the East Asian region might learn from scholarship on the EU. It seeks to establish some pathways to deeper dialogue between scholarly understandings of the EU experience of integration and the East Asian experience of regionalism, aiming to contribute to comparative regional integration analysis. It argues that the key characteristic of European integration theory is an 'institutions plus embedded norms' framework and that the distinguishing feature of East Asian regionalism is a framework of architecture based on open economic regionalism, normative priors and security imperatives.

show abstract

“…Second, enlarging or upgrading existing cooperation (e.g., enlarging ASEAN-6 into ASEAN-10; building CMIM on the basis of CMI; expanding Masterplan on ASEAN Connectivity [MPAC] 2010 into MPAC 2025). Third, encouraging the big powers to "compete to cooperate", to court regional countries, to complement strengths, cultivate relational networks, actualize opportunities, and enlarge partnerships in a mutually reinforcing and mutually beneficial manner, in due course institutionalizing ASEAN centrality (Dosch and Mols 1998;Haacke 2009;Kim 2014). Examples are plentiful: the signings of the respective ASEAN-plus-one free trade agreements (FTAs) since 2002, the accessions by dialogue partners to ASEAN's non-aggression pact, the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC) since 2003, as well as the continuous substantiation of the respective dialogue partnerships over the past decades.…”

Section: Buildingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As the scope of ASEAN-based dialogue partnerships and region-wide cooper ative activities evolves and expands, so do their functions (Kuik and Rahman forthcoming). In its earlier decades, ASEAN evolved from an ideologically-based "diplomatic community" (Leifer 1989) preoccupied with regime security at home and regional security in the immediate neighborhood during the Cold War (Darby 1973;Van der Kroef 1978;Buszynski 1987) to a more confident regional actor capable of promoting regionalism and providing an inclusive institutional hub for cultivating multi-domain partnerships with countries across and beyond Southeast Asia in the post-Cold War era (Dosch and Mols 1998;Friedrichs 2012;Ba 2009;. Subsequently, since the 1990s, additional institutional roles for ASEAN-based mechanisms have been developed and expanded.…”

Section: Buildingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hedging via Institutions: ASEAN-led Multilateralism in the Age of the Indo-Pacific

Kuik¹

2022

AJP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article unpacks the dynamics of group hedging in international relations by examining the Southeast Asian states' collective efforts to use ASEAN-led multilateral institutions as a platform to hedge against a range of risks surrounding intensifying big-power rivalry and increasing global uncertainties. It argues that ASEAN's collective hedging is a converged but not necessarily coordinated act. Despite the states' diverging attributes and outlooks, they converge on shared vulnerabilities, collective memories, and disadvantaged positions. Southeast Asian states thus view ASEAN-based multilateralism as an indispensable, albeit insufficient, means to engage big powers and manage other challenges. Through the functions of institutional binding, buffering, and building, ASEAN's group hedging serves to mitigate and offset risks while shaping Asian order amid deepening uncertainties in the age of the Indo-Pacific.

show abstract

Thirty years of ASEAN: Achievements and challenges

Cited by 11 publications

References 9 publications

Changing security cultures in Europe and Southeast Asia: Implications for inter-regionalism

Changing security cultures in Europe and Southeast Asia: Implications for inter-regionalism

East Asian Regionalism and EU Studies

Hedging via Institutions: ASEAN-led Multilateralism in the Age of the Indo-Pacific

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About